Q#34 Resumption of Play

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

"The ROP procedure starts over in each situation and a violation in one situation does not carry over to another". -False

In the "no thrower" situation, you may violate only once. Once a team incurs the penalty for that violation [lose the ball], any subsequent penalty is determined to be, not a violation, but a technical foul. For the same action [or inaction, as it were], the situation was remembered and the penalty has escalated.

Mick, I see where your reading of the rules would lead you to think that way. Let me just make sure I understand you. You're saying that, after a TO in Q1, team A doesn't make someone available for a throw-in. We do a 5 second count, award B the throw, which B completes successfully. Now, in Q4, A has the ball after another TO. They're not available, so you place the ball down and assess a technical foul for delay?

If that's what you're saying, I have to disagree based on the comment accompanying 7.5.1, which says "Each different time a team has delayed returning to the court after a time-out or between quarters, the RPP should be used." (Emphasis mine.)

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Mick, I see where your reading of the rules would lead you to think that way. Let me just make sure I understand you. You're saying that, after a TO in Q1, team A doesn't make someone available for a throw-in. We do a 5 second count, award B the throw, which B completes successfully. Now, in Q4, A has the ball after another TO. They're not available, so you place the ball down and assess a technical foul for delay?

If that's what you're saying, I have to disagree based on the comment accompanying 7.5.1, which says "Each different time a team has delayed returning to the court after a time-out or between quarters, the RPP should be used." (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, the resumimg play procedure is used in each case, but penalty changes.
Thus, a carry over exists because of value added from doing it a 2nd time.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

Yes, the resumimg play procedure is used in each case, but penalty changes.
Thus, a carry over exists because of value added from doing it a 2nd time.

We may have to agree to disagree on our reading of the comment.

In addition, the lead-in at the end of 7-5-1 reads "in each situation." To me, that means that articles (a)-(d) reset each time, and that we would not assess a T for RPP delay unless a team had actually violated the 5 second count on that actual throw-in.

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

In addition, the lead-in at the end of 7-5-1 reads "in each situation." To me, that means that articles (a)-(d) reset each time, and that we would not assess a T for RPP delay unless a team had actually violated the 5 second count on that actual throw-in.

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

If it can be determined what the heck "initial delay" means and why it is used (only) in the case of the missing thrower, then, I think, the question will be answered.
In the handbook [p.240 Failure to have the court ready..- Other Team delays] and the rule book [R4-38, Resumption of play], it says "violation instead of technical foul for initial delay". Further [in Handbook- Other Team delays- Penalty] A technical foul shall be charged in all situations (initial delay exception being previously noted).

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in, ... or just let them do it once and then start Whacking 'em.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mick

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in,

How is that any different from letting them continue to violate each and every time they hold the ball more than five seconds without throwing it in? Other violations don't accumulate to technical fouls. Why should this infraction?

[mick]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

How is that any different from letting them continue to violate each and every time they hold the ball more than five seconds without throwing it in? Other violations don't accumulate to technical fouls. Why should this infraction?

I have absolutely no idea.

"They" write [under Failure to have the Court ready for play Following a Time-out Warning]:

"In Simple Terms - A team will receive one delay warning per team for any of the four team delay actions. The next occurence of delay will result in an immediate technical foul." - 2007--08 High School Basketball Rules By Topic [p.240]

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mick

I have absolutely no idea.

"They" write [under Failure to have the Court ready for play Following a Time-out Warning]:

"In Simple Terms - A team will receive one delay warning per team for any of the four team delay actions. The next occurence of delay will result in an immediate technical foul." - 2007--08 High School Basketball Rules By Topic [p.240]

But those are specific situations that are listed under DoG headings. Providing a player for a throw-in isn't one of those situations. Not-providing-a-player isn't a DoG, it's just a violation. Are you thinking that because the word "delay" is used in the description of the situation, it falls into the DoG category?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

If it can be determined what the heck "initial delay" means and why it is used (only) in the case of the missing thrower, then, I think, the question will be answered.

Agreed.

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in, ... or just let them do it once and then start Whacking 'em.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Agreed.
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.

Mark, what's your take on the wording of 7-5-1c? It does make it sound as though they are cumulative over the game, although I agree they're not supposed to be.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Mark, what's your take on the wording of 7-5-1c? It does make it sound as though they are cumulative over the game, although I agree they're not supposed to be.

It does, but that's where I go back to the body of 7-5-1 itself and the "In each situation" qualifier.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Mark, what's your take on the wording of 7-5-1c? It does make it sound as though they are cumulative over the game, although I agree they're not supposed to be.

My point exactly. If it DOES reset every time, then how would subsection C ever ocur? Give me an example where ONLY one team (Team A) violates in a situation, then violates AGAIN in the same RPP situation when authorized to MAKE a throw in.

How would they ever get a chance to make a second throw in in the same situation if the other team didn't violate? If Team A violated, then Team B makes a throw in that, say, went OOB on the far side without touching anybody, then Team A would get the throw in back at the same location but it would be a DIFFERENT situation now. It is no longer after a TO. If they didn't provide a thrower now, the RPP would begin again with no T.

So, How does subsection C apply at all?????

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

In addition to the fact that RPP and DoG are treated separately. THey are different procedures.